On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >
> > Because otherwise, as I wrote in the comment, content will be handled
> > inconsistenctly based on whether the UA supports the MIME type
> > directly or just via RFC3023 support. (As seen, for example, with the
> > W3C validator.)
>
> So, enforcing a broken behaviour upon SVG to be consistent with systems
> that don't support SVG is a good idea? :)
Enforcing interoperability is a good idea. The issue of whether allowing
encoding information to be included in the metadata channel instead of in
the markup itself is a good idea or not is irrelevant; that ship sailed
years ago, with the publication of RFC3023. What matters at this juncture
is making sure that implementations of SVG and XML processors in general
parse SVG documents in the same way.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'